G.R. No. 252079 - ARMANDO G. ESTRELLA AND LYDIA G. CHUA, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered the ND amounting to P36,084,006.06 which was issued by the [Audit Team Leader] and [Supervising Auditor] of DPWH is hereby affirmed with the exclusion of Appellants, [Bonoan, Soguilon, and Tayao] as persons liable. [25] (Emphasis in the original.) The case was elevated to the COA Proper on automatic review pursuant to Section 7, [26] Rule V of the 2009 Revised Rules of Procedure of the [COA] (RRPC). COA PROPER RULING In its Decision No. 2018-046 [27] dated January 22, 2018, the COA Proper affirmed the ruling of the COA NGS in its entirety, thus: WHEREFORE , premises considered, [COA NGS] Cluster D Decision No. 2013-001 dated January 11, 2013 is hereby APPROVED . Accordingly [ND] No. 10-03 dated May 12, 2011 is AFFIRMED . [Bonoan, Soguilon, and Tayao], all of the [DPWH], are hereby excluded as persons liable, while [Estrella] remains liable under the ND. The Audit Team Leader and Supervising Auditor, DPWH, shall issue a supplemental ND against the DPWH Inspectors who issued certification of completion of the projects despite the presence of structural defects. [28] (Emphases in the original.) Estrella this time with Chua, moved for reconsideration, [29] but the COA Proper denied it in a Resolution dated November 25, 2009. Hence, this petition. Petitioners aver that the procurement requirements under RA No. 9184 were complied with. [30] Also, petitioners maintain that there was no loss on the part of the government as the contractors have completed the project and fully rectified the defects found in it. As such, petitioners argue that the ND should be lifted. [31] In its Comment, [32] the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the COA Proper, counters that rectification of the defects cannot extinguish petitioners' liability under the ND because the ND is not solely grounded upon such defects, but also upon the BAC officers' misfeasance in the conduct of the procurement process, which denied the government of its right to secure the most advantageous cost for the project. ISSUE Whether the COA Proper committed grave abuse of discretion in sustaining ND No. 10-03. RULING The Court finds the petition partly meritorious. Propriety of the Disallowance RA No. 9184 was enacted to promote transparency in the procurement process and implementation of contracts, as well as to provide a platform of competitiveness by extending equal opportunity to enable private contracting parties who are eligible and qualified to participate in public bidding. To this end, Section 10, [33] Article IV of RA No. 9184 mandates that all acquisition of goods, consulting services, and the contracting for infrastructure projects by any branch, department, office, agency, or instrumentality of the government, including state universities and colleges, government-owned and/or -controlled corporations, government financial institutions, and local government units shall be done through competitive bidding. [34] Competitive public bidding aims to